4 March 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Granting Bail in Dowry Death Cases Despite Evidence of Direct Involvement Shakes Public Confidence in Judiciary: Supreme Court

• Case- Shabeen Ahmed vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
• Date of Order- February 3, 2025
• Bench- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Incident: The case involves the death of a woman, Ms. Shahida Bano, in January 2024, within two years of her marriage. She was found dead in her matrimonial home, with a dupatta tied around her neck and fastened to a ceiling fan. The post-mortem report indicated forced strangulation, suggesting foul play.

Charges: A case was filed against the husband and in-laws of the deceased under:

• Section 304B (dowry death) of IPC.
• Section 498A (cruelty) of IPC.
• Provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Allahabad High Court Ruling: The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and two sisters-in-law, citing the lack of criminal antecedents.

Supreme Court's Intervention: The father of the deceased appealed to the Supreme Court, which:

• Canceled the bail granted to the father-in-law and mother-in-law.
• Criticized the High Court's "mechanical approach" in granting bail.
• Observed that there was prima facie evidence of dowry demand and domestic violence, including the victim's suffering due to unmet dowry demands.
• Emphasized the need for heightened vigilance in dowry death cases.
• Warned that casually granting bail in such cases would undermine public confidence in the judiciary and the criminal justice system.

Court's Observations:

• The Supreme Court emphasized stricter scrutiny in dowry death cases, especially when the woman dies under suspicious circumstances shortly after marriage.
• It stated that allowing the accused to remain on bail would be against the interests of justice, given the evidence suggesting a link between the accused's dowry demands, physical cruelty, and the victim’s death.
• The Court reiterated that courts must conduct deeper scrutiny when granting bail in dowry death cases to maintain societal trust in the justice system.

Outcome:    

• Bail granted to the father-in-law and mother-in-law was canceled.
• The bail granted to the two sisters-in-law was not interfered with by the Supreme Court.

Social Concern: The Court emphasized that dowry deaths are a serious social issue and that the judiciary must be particularly vigilant in such cases to send a strong societal message.

2. Court Shouldn’t Discard Expert’s Opinion Regarding Child’s Decision-Making Capacity Merely Based On Direct Interaction: Supreme Court

• Case- Sharmila Velamur vs. V. Sanjay and Ors.
• Date of Order- March 3, 2025
• Bench- Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Case Overview:

• The Supreme Court ruled on a child custody matter involving a 22-year-old with the cognitive abilities of an 8 to 10-year-old child.
• The appellant-mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the Madras High Court seeking custody of her child, arguing that the father took the child to India without her consent, violating a US Court order granting her custodial rights.

Child's Cognitive Abilities:

• The child, despite being 22 years old, was assessed to have cognitive abilities of an 8 to 10-year-old, which made him incapable of making complex, independent decisions, especially regarding long-term residence and financial matters.
• Expert medical assessments from NIMHANS, Bengaluru, and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare supported this evaluation.

High Court's Decision:

• The High Court denied the mother's custody request, based on a brief oral interaction with the child.
• The High Court ignored detailed medical reports confirming the child’s cognitive limitations.

Supreme Court's Ruling:

• The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, stating that a brief oral interaction with the child could not override the expert medical reports regarding his cognitive abilities.
• The Court emphasized that in such cases, expert medical assessments confirming a disability should be prioritized over inferences drawn from direct interactions with the child.

Court's Reasoning:

• The Court ruled that if an expert's report concludes that a person’s mental or physical age is significantly below the age of majority, no implied or express consent can be inferred for actions that may have a substantial impact on the person.
• The Court stated that the High Court should have given due credence to the expert’s opinion and, if there were doubts about the reliability of the report, should have ordered an inquiry through a reputable medical institution.

Outcome:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granted the child's custody to the appellant-mother, and permitted her to take the child back to the USA.

Court's Emphasis:

• The Court emphasized the importance of relying on expert opinions in cases involving individuals with disabilities and stressed that custody decisions should not be made based on assumptions or brief interactions that may not account for the child's cognitive limitations.

3. Hard to Believe Highly Qualified Woman Allowed Man to Sexually Exploit Her for 16 Years on Marriage Promise: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case

• Case- Rajnish Singh @ Soni vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
• Date of Order- March 3, 2025
• Bench- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Case Background: The case involved a 16-year consensual sexual relationship between the accused and the complainant, who is a highly educated and well-established adult. The complainant alleged that the accused had sexual relations with her under the false pretext of marriage.

Allegations and FIR: The FIR was lodged in 2022, alleging that the accused had forcibly subjected the complainant to sexual intercourse in 2006. However, the relationship continued for over 16 years, during which they lived together and even performed informal marriage rituals.

Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused, ruling that a mere breach of a marriage promise does not constitute rape unless it is proven that the accused never intended to marry from the outset.

Reasoning: The Court noted that the prolonged consensual relationship and the complainant's delay in reporting the alleged abuse raised doubts about her credibility. It observed that the complainant portrayed herself as the appellant's wife on several occasions, indicating a live-in relationship.

Precedents Cited: The Court referred to precedents like Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that a prolonged consensual relationship cannot be considered rape based on a false promise of marriage unless the consent was vitiated by deceit from the outset.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would be unjust and an abuse of the process of law, as there was no evidence of mala fide intentions or deceit from the beginning of the relationship.

Judicial Approach: The Court emphasized that consent can be vitiated if it was obtained through a deliberate misconception of fact, specifically when the man never intended to marry at the time of making the promise. However, in this case, the Court found no such evidence.

Motivation for Filing FIR: The Court noted that the complainant filed the FIR only after the accused married another woman, suggesting an ulterior motive to harass him.